5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow.
6.  On 1 November 1998 an explosion destroyed the monument to Tsar Nicolas II in Podolsk of the Moscow Region.
7.  On 13 August 1998 and on 4 April 1999 two night explosions in Moscow damaged the façade of the Federal Security Service (“FSB”).
8.  Criminal investigations into acts of terrorism were opened following the above events. Responsibility for the above explosions was attributed to an anarchist movement “New Revolutionary Alternative” (NRA).
9.  On 23 February 2000 the applicant was arrested. Her detention was subsequently extended on a number of occasions. In November 2000 the applicant was released.
10.  The preliminary investigation was completed on 22 May 2001. Subsequently, the applicant studied the case file until 16 July 2001. In December 2001 the investigating authority ordered the defence (the co-accused) to complete its study of the case file before 5 February 2002.
11.  On 21 February 2002 the criminal case was submitted to the Moscow City Court for trial. The case was assigned to judge Ko.. On 6 March 2002 judge Ko. refused to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Moscow Regional Court for holding a trial by jury. The judge determined that the nature of the charges and the need to ensure security of the trial participants required a non-public trial. On an unspecified date the case file was classified as “secret”. Apparently, despite the above decision, the trial was filmed with a video camera, while the defence was refused permission for an audio recording of the trial. On 25 April 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 6 March 2002 in the part concerning the trial in camera.
12.  On 26 April 2002 two lay assessors were appointed to sit with the presiding judge. It appears that the applicant and one of her co-accused retained new counsel, who were given time to study the case file.
13.  It appears that since April 2002 at least twenty adjournments were ordered, mostly due to one or several defence lawyers’ absence for medical reasons, due to annual leave or unspecified reasons. In January 2003 judge Ko. sent a letter to the Moscow Bar Association complaining that the defence lawyers had obstructed the trial by failing to appear on a number of occasions. The judge indicated, for instance, that the applicant’s co-accused lawyer Mr Ka. had not been present on 21 May and 25 June 2002 owing to his involvement in another trial; had been on sick leave from 23 November to 11 December 2002; had been absent on 18 July and 16 December 2002 and on 9 January 2003 without a valid excuse supported by proof; and between 19 and 27 December 2002 had apparently been admitted to hospital, allegedly until 23 January 2003. Ms Ka. (also the co-accused’s lawyer) had not been present on 26 April 2002 owing to alleged illness and had been absent on 18 July and 27 December 2002 and on 23 January 2003 without a valid excuse supported by proof.
14.  On 14 February 2003 the City Court rejected a motion the defence had submitted seeking to have the trial conducted in public. The court held that the case was “secret” for the purposes of Article 241 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the anti-terrorist legislation. On 14 March 2003 the trial court examined a number of requests submitted by the defence. The court considered that the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, which had been applicable before the trial, did not require that the defence should be provided with both the bill of indictment and any “annexes” to it. In any event, the defence had been provided with the annexes, including the list of persons to be called as witnesses at the trial.
15.  At trial, the applicant was kept in a metal cage guarded by convoy officers.
16.  On 14 May 2003 the Moscow City Court convicted the applicant of several counts of handling explosives and terrorism. She was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Referring to written depositions by Ms V. and Mr St. made at the pre-trial investigation stage, the City Court established that the bomb targeted a public building, the FSB office. The court also relied on written depositions by Mr N. and oral testimony by witnesses Mr R., Mr K., Mr S. who had received information about the defendants’ anarchist activities and details of the explosions either directly from them or other persons, including Mr Biryukov.
17.  On 4 December 2003 the Supreme Court, sitting in camera, upheld the judgment in respect of the applicant.